The Prevarications of Markiewicz (Prussian Blue)

[Nessie]

Revisionists do not have such a scenario. They have zero witnesses or other evidence from the Kremas, to support any of their suggested scenarios, of the Leuchenkeller being used for mass showering, delousing, corpse storage or bomb shelter. Rudolf claims no mass gassings (but he may be wrong) and cannot even come up with a scenario as to what did happen!

Judging from this very thread, we clearly do. You've been reduced to (literally) arguing that the physical, scientific evidence must somehow be wrong because it would contradict some of the witness statements. That's not an exaggeration, that's quite literally what your arguing.

Bear in mind that Exterminationists do not have any VALID witness testimony for their case neither.

That is just your opinion. Revisionists do not use a valid method to determine witness truthfulness.

But they are fond of finding excuses why there witnesses were wrong counting on the 'sympathy with the victim' effect in their audience. Or the 'sympathy with the courageous witness that spoke the truth against those evil Nazis'. Once folks have swallowed that pill, it's difficult to get them off the hook.

Revisionists ignore years of study of witnesses, memory and recollection to conclude that 100% of them lied, without being able to evidence what did happen and produce a single witness to that.

[Archie]

Based on the evidence pertaining to the use of the building and the Leichenkeller, the most likely explanation is that Zyklon B did not leave as much residue as expected, and we are not entirely sure why that is. It would appear that short exposures in a room full of people, with a ventilation system to draw out gas and then repeated washing and painting, means little to no residue. That revisionists find that too surprising a result to accept, is not evidence to prove no mass gassings.

You're "not entirely sure" because the data conflict with your beliefs and you have no way of explaining the data.

I have said what I think explains the data. The length of exposure, the ventilation system and washing and painting the walls.

Instead of revising your beliefs, you ASSUME there must be some unknown triple bank shot explanation. The real explanation is the most obvious one. There are virtually zero cyanide compounds in the walls because the holocaust is a fraud.

The best explanation is the evidenced one. It is evidenced that mass gassings took place. It is not evidenced that any of the revisionist theoreticals of showering, delousing, corpse storage or bomb shelter took place. Evidentially, revisionism fails.

-Nobody was claiming these rooms had minimal exposure to HCN until after Leuchter. This is nothing but a post hoc explanation. There would have been dozens, even hundreds of gassings in these rooms. It's also false that the ventilation was superfast. It likely would have taken hours to fully ventilate the room.
-Very few testimonies mention washing the walls and most of them are extremely late. The one that comes to mind if Josef Sackar's testimony (story) in We Wept Without Tears which was published in the 1990s. Washing the walls would add moisture which is not consistent with the earlier BS claim that was made that the walls were too dry for Prussian blue to form.
-Painting the walls? Since when is this part of the story? And where did this paint go? Let me guess? The Nazis painted the walls to prevent Prussian blue from forming and then stripped the paint off as part of the cover up?

Your argument is the logically flawed argument from incredulity, that because you cannot work out how it was possible, does not therefore mean it was not possible. The data from Rudolf and reasoning you provide is compelling. The conclusion that mass gassings left little residue is counterintuitive. But many events end up with results that are not as expected. It is proven that gassings took place. Revisionists cannot prove any other event took place. Therefore, for reasons we cannot explain to your satisfaction, the gassings left far less traces of Zyklon B than expected. That does not logically prove no gassings.

Rudolf also admits that scientifically, his findings do not prove no gassings. He admits his conclusion may be wrong and more testing and experimentation is needed. As a scientist, he has put forward a theory, with some scientific evidence. He knows that the scientific process to reach a more definitive conclusion, needs more work. His is just the first step and for revisionists to argue he has completed the journey and reached a proof, is scientifically ignorant.

In terms of evidence, logic and science, revisionists claims of no gassings all fail.

This is why I initially told you not to post in this thread. You have posted a lot but have contributed nothing to the actual topic. And then here we see your game. You don't care about the science. You simply beg the question.

Nessie reasoning
-The Holocaust is true
-Therefore, the gassings happened
-Therefore we can ignore the chemical tests suggesting the contrary

Once again, Nessie, if you think the topic of this thread is irrelevant because you already made up your mind, then please show yourself out.

[Nessie]

...

Your argument is the logically flawed argument from incredulity, that because you cannot work out how it was possible, does not therefore mean it was not possible. The data from Rudolf and reasoning you provide is compelling. The conclusion that mass gassings left little residue is counterintuitive. But many events end up with results that are not as expected. It is proven that gassings took place. Revisionists cannot prove any other event took place. Therefore, for reasons we cannot explain to your satisfaction, the gassings left far less traces of Zyklon B than expected. That does not logically prove no gassings.

Rudolf also admits that scientifically, his findings do not prove no gassings. He admits his conclusion may be wrong and more testing and experimentation is needed. As a scientist, he has put forward a theory, with some scientific evidence. He knows that the scientific process to reach a more definitive conclusion, needs more work. His is just the first step and for revisionists to argue he has completed the journey and reached a proof, is scientifically ignorant.

In terms of evidence, logic and science, revisionists claims of no gassings all fail.

This is why I initially told you not to post in this thread. You have posted a lot but have contributed nothing to the actual topic. And then here we see your game. You don't care about the science. You simply beg the question.

Nessie reasoning
-The Holocaust is true
-Therefore, the gassings happened
-Therefore we can ignore the chemical tests suggesting the contrary

Once again, Nessie, if you think the topic of this thread is irrelevant because you already made up your mind, then please show yourself out.

I am being more rigorous with and showing a greater understanding of the scientific process than you are. I agree with Rudolf, he may be wrong and his claims need more experimentation. Rudolf understands, unlike revisionists, that a scientific claim by one person, with a theory, that has not been tested by experimentation, cannot and should not be taken as a certainty. That is why there is peer review and repeated testing, as scientists check claims to make sure they are correct.

You try to ignore Rudolf and me, because you want his conclusion to be correct. Markiewicz and Green have reviewed Rudolf and given their reasons why he is wrong on the science. So, we have Rudolf admitting he may be wrong and what further work is needed, and two others stating he is wrong, but you demand that Rudolf is accepted as correct. That is contrary to the scientific method.

It is you who has made their mind up, based on very uncertain chemistry. My contribution to the actual topic is to explain that Markiewicz's review, along with Rudolf's uncertainty, mean revisionists are wrong to come to a definitive conclusion about the chemistry as they are making a mistake regarding the scientific process.

To further reinforce that scientific error, I also point to the evidence and logic and how that contradicts revisionist claims.

[Archie]

I am being more rigorous with and showing a greater understanding of the scientific process than you are. I agree with Rudolf, he may be wrong and his claims need more experimentation. Rudolf understands, unlike revisionists, that a scientific claim by one person, with a theory, that has not been tested by experimentation, cannot and should not be taken as a certainty. That is why there is peer review and repeated testing, as scientists check claims to make sure they are correct.

You try to ignore Rudolf and me, because you want his conclusion to be correct. Markiewicz and Green have reviewed Rudolf and given their reasons why he is wrong on the science. So, we have Rudolf admitting he may be wrong and what further work is needed, and two others stating he is wrong, but you demand that Rudolf is accepted as correct. That is contrary to the scientific method.

It is you who has made their mind up, based on very uncertain chemistry. My contribution to the actual topic is to explain that Markiewicz's review, along with Rudolf's uncertainty, mean revisionists are wrong to come to a definitive conclusion about the chemistry as they are making a mistake regarding the scientific process.

To further reinforce that scientific error, I also point to the evidence and logic and how that contradicts revisionist claims.

You are making entirely too much of the very end of Germar's book (probably the only part you read) where he makes a modest statement merely saying that he is open to being disproved. That is a sign of rigor and open-mindedness on Germar's part. Those are not qualities you have ever shown.

What Germar is saying is that based on the best available information, what we know about the properties of HCN and of concrete and plater, and under what conditions Prussian blue is likely to form, we can say with pretty high confidence that rooms like LK1 would have formed cyanide compounds in the walls if they were exposed to hundreds of gassings. But there is some small chance there were some fluke conditions that hindered this reaction. But probably not.

Also, why do you keep falsely repeating over and over that "no experiments have ever been done"? Germar and others did do experiments. For example,

Experiments I performed with reactions of hydrogen cyanide (some 4 g per
m3 in air, 15°C, 75% rel. humidity) with mixtures of Fe(OH)2-Fe(OH)3 at
tached to wet paper strips showed no blue discoloration after 30 min at a pH
value223 of 2 to 3, since at such low values almost no hydrogen cyanide disso
ciates to the reactive cyanide (see Subsection 6.5.5). At pH values of 7 to 9, a
visible blue discoloration occurred after a few minutes of inserting the sample.
At higher pH values, this time span grew again, because the initially absorbed
hydrogen cyanide had to lower the pH value first, before it could form the
pigment (see Subsection 6.6.1, pH Sensitivity).

These experiments show clearly that undissociated, gaseous HCN or HCN
dissolved as gas shows little reactivity. An addition of small amounts of KCN
to an aqueous sulfuric-acid solution of Fe2+/Fe3+, however, results in the im
mediate precipitation of the pigment. The cyanide obviously reacts faster with
the iron salts than it is protonated by sulfuric acid, i.e., converted into hydro
gen cyanide.(Chemistry of Auschwitz, 192)

And that is hardly the only experimental data available on this question.

Re: Markiewicz, are you seriously defending that clown? Please see the OP and please defend his decision to exclude over 99.9% of the cyanide from his tests. And please explain what the blue staining is from if it isn't from Zyklon.

Green we have not discussed much in this thread, but Germar demolished him in their exchanges. See for example "Green Sees Red," published in Auschwitz Lies (HH #22). Green made one point about how wall samples when tested weren't sufficiently alkaline. This sounds like a really strong argument, but Germar refuted this by pointing out that the alkalinity of concrete changes over time and is not constant. It might not have been alkaline in the 90s, but back in 1943 it would have been fresh concrete which is generally quite moist and alkaline (ideal for formation of Prussian blue).

[Nessie]

I am being more rigorous with and showing a greater understanding of the scientific process than you are. I agree with Rudolf, he may be wrong and his claims need more experimentation. Rudolf understands, unlike revisionists, that a scientific claim by one person, with a theory, that has not been tested by experimentation, cannot and should not be taken as a certainty. That is why there is peer review and repeated testing, as scientists check claims to make sure they are correct.

You try to ignore Rudolf and me, because you want his conclusion to be correct. Markiewicz and Green have reviewed Rudolf and given their reasons why he is wrong on the science. So, we have Rudolf admitting he may be wrong and what further work is needed, and two others stating he is wrong, but you demand that Rudolf is accepted as correct. That is contrary to the scientific method.

It is you who has made their mind up, based on very uncertain chemistry. My contribution to the actual topic is to explain that Markiewicz's review, along with Rudolf's uncertainty, mean revisionists are wrong to come to a definitive conclusion about the chemistry as they are making a mistake regarding the scientific process.

To further reinforce that scientific error, I also point to the evidence and logic and how that contradicts revisionist claims.

You are making entirely too much of the very end of Germar's book (probably the only part you read) where he makes a modest statement merely saying that he is open to being disproved. That is a sign of rigor and open-mindedness on Germar's part. Those are not qualities you have ever shown.

How have you shown open mindedness to Rudolf being wrong? You assert that he is correct and no gassings took place. By doing so you close your mind to those with more knowledge of chemistry who say Rudolf is wrong and the evidence of what took place inside the Leichenkeller, that he is wrong. I have an open mind to those contradictions to Rudolf and they weigh up who is most likely to be correct, Rudolf, or the others and the evidence.

You make entirely too little, of the admission and the chapter on what further research is needed. Indeed, I have never seen a revisionist go into that chapter and discuss its points.

What Germar is saying is that based on the best available information, what we know about the properties of HCN and of concrete and plater, and under what conditions Prussian blue is likely to form, we can say with pretty high confidence that rooms like LK1 would have formed cyanide compounds in the walls if they were exposed to hundreds of gassings. But there is some small chance there were some fluke conditions that hindered this reaction. But probably not.

Why do you say "probably not"? Why have you closed your mind to Rudolf being wrong? What makes it so certain for you he is right? It is certainly not the evidence of what took place.

Also, why do you keep falsely repeating over and over that "no experiments have ever been done"? Germar and others did do experiments. For example,

Experiments I performed with reactions of hydrogen cyanide (some 4 g per
m3 in air, 15°C, 75% rel. humidity) with mixtures of Fe(OH)2-Fe(OH)3 at
tached to wet paper strips showed no blue discoloration after 30 min at a pH
value223 of 2 to 3, since at such low values almost no hydrogen cyanide disso
ciates to the reactive cyanide (see Subsection 6.5.5). At pH values of 7 to 9, a
visible blue discoloration occurred after a few minutes of inserting the sample.
At higher pH values, this time span grew again, because the initially absorbed
hydrogen cyanide had to lower the pH value first, before it could form the
pigment (see Subsection 6.6.1, pH Sensitivity).

These experiments show clearly that undissociated, gaseous HCN or HCN
dissolved as gas shows little reactivity. An addition of small amounts of KCN
to an aqueous sulfuric-acid solution of Fe2+/Fe3+, however, results in the im
mediate precipitation of the pigment. The cyanide obviously reacts faster with
the iron salts than it is protonated by sulfuric acid, i.e., converted into hydro
gen cyanide.(Chemistry of Auschwitz, 192)

And that is hardly the only experimental data available on this question.

There is nothing that replicates the conditions inside the Leichenkellers, repeatedly exposing the type of plaster used in the correct temperature and humidity, for a set period of time, venting, washing and occasional painting.

Re: Markiewicz, are you seriously defending that clown? Please see the OP and please defend his decision to exclude over 99.9% of the cyanide from his tests. And please explain what the blue staining is from if it isn't from Zyklon.

Green we have not discussed much in this thread, but Germar demolished him in their exchanges. See for example "Green Sees Red," published in Auschwitz Lies (HH #22). Green made one point about how wall samples when tested weren't sufficiently alkaline. This sounds like a really strong argument, but Germar refuted this by pointing out that the alkalinity of concrete changes over time and is not constant. It might not have been alkaline in the 90s, but back in 1943 it would have been fresh concrete which is generally quite moist and alkaline (ideal for formation of Prussian blue).

I am not a chemist, so cannot reasonably comment on who is right or wrong. I can see the points being made, such as what impact washing would have. I see that Rudolf knows he could be wrong and that more work is needed and that others with more understanding say he is wrong. Crucially, I look to see which opinion fits with the evidence, and it is Markiewicz and Green. You have an agenda to disbelieve the evidence, so you side with Rudolf and support his arguments. This is just yet another example of you are led by opinion and I am led by evidence.

[fireofice]

I found something Rudolf said to back up my claim that more Zyklon B was used for the homicidal gas chambers. He pretty much explicitly says it here where he argues that the amount of Zyklon B needed to fill the whole room and kill everyone in the time period claimed would have been so much more than usual that it would have been explosive:

https://codoh.com/library/document/is-z ... explosive/

[TlsMS93]

I found something Rudolf said to back up my claim that more Zyklon B was used for the homicidal gas chambers. He pretty much explicitly says it here where he argues that the amount of Zyklon B needed to fill the whole room and kill everyone in the time period claimed would have been so much more than usual that it would have been explosive:

https://codoh.com/library/document/is-z ... explosive/

The Nizkor Project and other sources have pointed out that the minimum concentration of Zyklon B to be explosive is 56,000 parts per million, while the amount used to kill a human being is 300 parts per million, as evidenced by the Merck Index and the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. In fact, the Nazis' own documentation stated: "Explosion hazard: 75 grams of HCN in 1 cubic meter of air normal application of approximately 8-10 grams per cubic meter, therefore not explosive."

Nuremberg document NI-9912 is used as a source for this.

[Hektor]

I found something Rudolf said to back up my claim that more Zyklon B was used for the homicidal gas chambers. He pretty much explicitly says it here where he argues that the amount of Zyklon B needed to fill the whole room and kill everyone in the time period claimed would have been so much more than usual that it would have been explosive:

https://codoh.com/library/document/is-z ... explosive/

The Nizkor Project and other sources have pointed out that the minimum concentration of Zyklon B to be explosive is 56,000 parts per million, while the amount used to kill a human being is 300 parts per million, as evidenced by the Merck Index and the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. In fact, the Nazis' own documentation stated: "Explosion hazard: 75 grams of HCN in 1 cubic meter of air normal application of approximately 8-10 grams per cubic meter, therefore not explosive."

Nuremberg document NI-9912 is used as a source for this.

That's not the amount used to kill a human being. It is the amount considered potentially lethal. The amount one would use to kill a human being would of course be much higher than that. To kill one uses an overkill, not what your health and safety brochure says could be lethal.

So the whole 300ppm argument is flawed and rather demonstrates that people did not give what would be needed to use HCN to kill people too much serious thought.

[curioussoul]

You try to ignore Rudolf and me, because you want his conclusion to be correct. Markiewicz and Green have reviewed Rudolf and given their reasons why he is wrong on the science. So, we have Rudolf admitting he may be wrong and what further work is needed, and two others stating he is wrong, but you demand that Rudolf is accepted as correct.

You would have to find a scientific explanation for why the physical evidence runs counter to the gassing story. Your argument, which is that the physical evidence is wrong because it contradicts some of the witness testimony about Auschwitz, is not a scientific argument. Since Green and Markiewicz failed to support their arguments in a scientifically defensible way, and because Rudolf's arguments still hold up after some 30 years, I don't see how you would magically come up with a scientific argument after so long.

Right?

[Nessie]

You try to ignore Rudolf and me, because you want his conclusion to be correct. Markiewicz and Green have reviewed Rudolf and given their reasons why he is wrong on the science. So, we have Rudolf admitting he may be wrong and what further work is needed, and two others stating he is wrong, but you demand that Rudolf is accepted as correct.

You would have to find a scientific explanation for why the physical evidence runs counter to the gassing story. Your argument, which is that the physical evidence is wrong because it contradicts some of the witness testimony about Auschwitz, is not a scientific argument. Since Green and Markiewicz failed to support their arguments in a scientifically defensible way, and because Rudolf's arguments still hold up after some 30 years, I don't see how you would magically come up with a scientific argument after so long.

Right?

Wrong. Rudolf's argument is logically flawed. The science is convincing to you, and him, because you want it to be. It is highly unlikely that you, or he, would find a scientific rebuttal and explanation that is contrary, believable, because you have invested so much in your belief. Rudolf admits he may be wrong, and he is. I know that, because of all the evidence that gassings did take place. You say that is not scientific, but if there is evidence from other sources that contradicts the scientific finding, then logically, the finding is at least potentially wrong.

Right?

That the physical evidence runs counter to the evidence for gassings does not necessarily mean gassings did not happen. You rule out that the physical evidence may be counterintuitive, and unexpectedly mass gassings in those circumstances do not leave high traces. Or Rudolf is wrong in his calculations, or that Markiewicz and Green are correct.

To prove Rudolf is correct, either needs a lot of further experimentation, or it needs evidence that something other than gassings took place. You want him to be correct, so you do not apply any rigorous scrutiny or checking. You are cherry picking one piece of evidence, that is opinion that is admitted could be wrong, and asserting it is correct.

[HansHill]

...

I am being more rigorous with and showing a greater understanding of the scientific process than you are. I agree with Rudolf, he may be wrong and his claims need more experimentation. Rudolf understands, unlike revisionists, that a scientific claim by one person, with a theory, that has not been tested by experimentation, cannot and should not be taken as a certainty. That is why there is peer review and repeated testing, as scientists check claims to make sure they are correct.

[/quote]

Archie has already explained what Rudolf's position here entails, and it cements his positions as one of science, rather than one of polemics. This is a credit to Rudolf. I will further explain however, as you seem to have not understood.

Rudolf is making us, and the academic world aware, that he is willing to consider and / or appreciate any other outstanding factors, processes or properties of HcN that have as yet become known or understood by us. To give a rather silly example, lets consider:

Tomorrow we become aware that by chance, every day an alleged gassing took place at Birkenau, there just so happened to be a solar flare. Remarkable! These solar flares in turn produces an overabundance of photons, which in turn ionised the HcN molecules in a rather peculiar way we've never seen before, hence completely explaining the absence of HcN residues! Even more remarkable!

Should this fantastical scenario ever come to light, Rudolf would be willing and open-minded to revisit his results in light of this solar flare / photon / ionised HcN thesis.

So far, nothing of the sort has ever surfaced, so Rudolf's position holds.

[borjastick]

It is truly hilarious to read and hear Holocaust liars talking of a lack of evidence on our side of the aisle. Their lack of evidence is the whole reason why they try to tie everyone up in reams of irrelevant minutiae and then add salt to their wound by piling in with stupid arguments about this that and the other which doesn't move the dial one jot.

If the holocaust had happened as claimed or even close to what is claimed in the manner claimed the evidence would be both everywhere and enormous. That it is neither says it all.

Don't see much discussion about Srebrenica, Rwanda, Cambodia etc.

[HansHill]

Don't see much discussion about Srebrenica, Rwanda, Cambodia etc.

And those are legal to discuss!

[Archie]

You try to ignore Rudolf and me, because you want his conclusion to be correct. Markiewicz and Green have reviewed Rudolf and given their reasons why he is wrong on the science. So, we have Rudolf admitting he may be wrong and what further work is needed, and two others stating he is wrong, but you demand that Rudolf is accepted as correct.

You would have to find a scientific explanation for why the physical evidence runs counter to the gassing story. Your argument, which is that the physical evidence is wrong because it contradicts some of the witness testimony about Auschwitz, is not a scientific argument. Since Green and Markiewicz failed to support their arguments in a scientifically defensible way, and because Rudolf's arguments still hold up after some 30 years, I don't see how you would magically come up with a scientific argument after so long.

Right?

Wrong. Rudolf's argument is logically flawed. The science is convincing to you, and him, because you want it to be. It is highly unlikely that you, or he, would find a scientific rebuttal and explanation that is contrary, believable, because you have invested so much in your belief. Rudolf admits he may be wrong, and he is. I know that, because of all the evidence that gassings did take place. You say that is not scientific, but if there is evidence from other sources that contradicts the scientific finding, then logically, the finding is at least potentially wrong.

Right?

That the physical evidence runs counter to the evidence for gassings does not necessarily mean gassings did not happen. You rule out that the physical evidence may be counterintuitive, and unexpectedly mass gassings in those circumstances do not leave high traces. Or Rudolf is wrong in his calculations, or that Markiewicz and Green are correct.

To prove Rudolf is correct, either needs a lot of further experimentation, or it needs evidence that something other than gassings took place. You want him to be correct, so you do not apply any rigorous scrutiny or checking. You are cherry picking one piece of evidence, that is opinion that is admitted could be wrong, and asserting it is correct.

I have let this through only because I want people to see for themselves how faulty your reasoning is.

But I do want to say that this sort of posting is not acceptable. You are 1) ignoring the proposition under discussion (which regards chemical testing), 2) dismissing substantive counterpoints based on your speculations about people's motivations without addressing any of the actual arguments.

[Nessie]

....
Archie has already explained what Rudolf's position here entails, and it cements his positions as one of science, rather than one of polemics. This is a credit to Rudolf. I will further explain however, as you seem to have not understood.

Rudolf is making us, and the academic world aware, that he is willing to consider and / or appreciate any other outstanding factors, processes or properties of HcN that have as yet become known or understood by us. To give a rather silly example, lets consider:

Tomorrow we become aware that by chance, every day an alleged gassing took place at Birkenau, there just so happened to be a solar flare. Remarkable! These solar flares in turn produces an overabundance of photons, which in turn ionised the HcN molecules in a rather peculiar way we've never seen before, hence completely explaining the absence of HcN residues! Even more remarkable!

Should this fantastical scenario ever come to light, Rudolf would be willing and open-minded to revisit his results in light of this solar flare / photon / ionised HcN thesis.

So far, nothing of the sort has ever surfaced, so Rudolf's position holds.

What Rudolf has done, is the equivalent of a maritime engineer claiming that he has examined the wreck of the Titanic, it cannot have been sunk by an iceberg, therefore everyone on the ship is a liar.

It is unscientific of you to cherrypick Rudolf's results and claim his position holds, in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.